@centurion180ad The sun is visible, and that's a star, isn't it? You shouldn't expect any other stars to be visible, inasmuch as the brightest star after the sun is 13 billion times dimmer. Isn't that obvious?
The LM does not arrive this way near the CM at all; it arrives elliptically on the orbit of the CM, a little ahead of it; it does not arrive vertically like it is shown on this video.
@hunchbacked Like just about everything else, you have a very naive view of rendezvous and docking. Because you refuse to learn the actual procedures and the rationale for each step, or even to concede that others might actually understand things you don't, you're trapped within your naive little world view.
@hunchbacked The facts here have been explained to you many times by many people, but they don't fit your preferred hoax conclusion so you ignore them. No, the LM is not a helicopter. It is a spacecraft with 16 100-pound rocket thrusters, an inertial reference platform and a computerized fly-by-wire digital control system, the first ever built. In a vacuum without wind or lift, the physics is MUCH cleaner. It is much EASIER to maneuver than a helicopter.
Wrong, it is not easier to control than a helicopter, it is much more difficult, because the action of air brings a great help to the maneuver of an helicopter.
@hunchbacked You really are clueless. Newton's F=ma applies everywhere, but in a spacecraft the ONLY accelerations are those applied by its own thrusters, which can be turned on and off very precisely and under computer control with the help of an INS. In a helicopter there are many difficult-to-predict accelerations from the wind, turbulence, rotor wash, other aircraft, etc.
Or are you saying that even unmanned spacecraft cannot maneuver?
@hunchbacked Aircraft are easier in only one way: fuel economy. The momentum of an aircraft can be changed with control surfaces that require almost no energy to operate; in a spacecraft it's all done by expending propellants. Aircraft engines have much higher specific impulses because they use "free" air as oxidizer and part of the propellant. But spacecraft in vacuum still have much greater predictability and controllability, because all the forces are much simpler.
A minor correction: a spacecraft must *usually* expend propellant to change its momentum; solar radiation pressures are a (difficult) alternative for linear momentum. Angular momentum can also be changed with magnetic torquers, solar radiation pressure, gravity gradient booms and momentum wheels, though the latter must be unloaded periodically through one of the other three.
No, it is more difficult to control the lunar module in the void than an helicopter in earth's atmosphere.
The tests with the LLRV have amply shown how difficult it was to control; and, if there is the least problem with the engine, adios muchachos: It is the crash guaranteed when landing on the moon.
@hunchbacked Nonsense. You're not even listening to what I'm saying; you're just waving your hands and restating your conclusion because it "seems right" to you. Once again, F=ma (or a = F/m) is true everywhere. In an atmosphere, you have many forces (F's), many of which are aerodynamic and thus very hard to model. In space, you have NO forces except gravity (completely predictable from position) and thruster firings. That's it. Very easy to model and control.
@hunchbacked Oh, I definitely do listen to what you say, as painful as that can be at times. It's just that I then reject it as wrong. And I even explain why.
If you were to entertain the notion that you just sometimes might be wrong, this might actually make sense to you.
@hunchbacked The LLRV flew successfully plenty of times. Neil Armstrong's famous crash happened when the attitude control system ran out of helium pressurant. Once again, the LLRV was a training and research vehicle; it attempted to provide on earth an experience like that of flying the LM above the moon, but it was entirely UNLIKE the LM and had nothing to do with the actual LM design.
This is a common misconception among hoaxers but I thought you were smarter than them.
@hunchbacked You didn't get this before so here it is again. This film is at 6 fps so it shows 4x normal speed. The LM moments of inertia at docking were: XX= 4568, YY=4127, ZZ=2938 kg/m^2. Each thruster is 445N (100 lbf) over a moment arm of 2m for a torque of 890 N-m. So firing 4 thrusters gave angular accelerations of yaw: 0.78; pitch: 0.863; roll: 1.21 rad/s^2. Linear accelerations are: X = 0.684; Y=Z=0.342 m/s^2. The depicted motions are WELL within these!
He just stacks figures, and he says that his figures correspond what we see; but what we see is fantasy, and he just imagines his figures, he picked somewhere, but which are completely unretated with what we see, correspond with what we see, because he likes to imagine they do.
So you're unable to prove him wrong. And you're unable to do your own calculations based on the the footage. You're only rebuttal is saying he is wrong. Yeah... Thanks for another confirmation that you don't understand anything about this.
@hunchbacked I *imagine* my figures? I said where I got them and what they mean. It's hard to be fully detailed in 500 chars, so I'm working on a web page with all the details. If you can't give calculations of your own supporting a different conclusion, if you can't do more than wave your hands and claim it's fantasy, then it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
@hunchbacked You say you're an engineer. You say science is important. If this were actually true, you'd already understand the importance of quantitative analysis: measurements and calculations. Numbers. Mine show that the motions we see are well within the LM's capabilities when you consider the sped-up film rate. So let's see YOUR calculations. You don't have any, do you?
@hunchbacked I am writing up the LM maneuvering calculations in a note. (I don't see any point in making a video of something that is better communicated in text.) My figures for the 890 N-m torques of the RCS thrusters were estimates as I did not have exact measurements for the moment arms. I have since found the actual torques in a reference: yaw 695 N-m; roll & pitch 746 N-m. A little less, so they do not materially change the results. But I like accuracy even if you don't.
Yes, you are certainly reading these explanations from somewere, you have not drawn them from your hat, but you assume that they correspond with what we see on the video.
@hunchbacked I am not "reading these explanations" from anywhere. I've produced them myself, using only basic numerical references such as the dimensions of the LM, its mass and moments of inertia at docking, and the thrust and positions of its 16 attitude control engines.
If you were actually an engineer as you claim, you could do this for yourself, or check my math and see either way that I'm correct.
Wonderful video that should be required viewing in all American schools. One has to wonder if the screwballs who deny the Lunar landings gained a glimmer of the professionalism and immense courage of the men that made these historic journeys.
They should get help, either through education or counseling, and stop slandering the brave men and the tens of thousands of engineers and technicians who sent them to the surface of the moon and back..
@Kapindur If NASA video would be shown in schools, children that had not been brainwashed & indoctrinated sufficiently would ask embarrassing questions.
Why are there no stars ever visible?
Why is there no nozzle blast ever visible?
Why does the moon move out from under the ascending LEM?
Why is there no dust-blast or surface burn & blast crater ever visible?
Why didn't the men suffer radiation poisoning?
Scientific questions would lead to scientific answers.
@centurion180ad I would be very happy if kids were to ask those questions. Because every one of them has a good answer that sincere kids might actually listen to and learn something from. Indeed, the hoax theory is like making lemons (the idiot hoax theories) into lemonade (a chance to teach some real science). Unlike the adult Apollo deniers who lost their ability to learn, if they ever had it in the first place.
@centurion180ad Sorry, but every one of those questions has a perfectly reasonable answer. They just seem counterintuitive to uninformed people whose intuitions are based on a lifetime of living on the earth. So like I said, I'd be happy if kids asked those questions. Kids are actually interested in learning the answers, not in using questions as weapons as you apparently do.
@centurion180ad In 500 chars or less? That's the problem with crank claims, they're easy to make but take more time to fully refute. But fortunately they're seldom original, so we don't have to keep redoing the work. All or nearly all of yours has been answered in complete detail on clavius; you know the site? The only one I don't understand is "moon moving out under ascending LEM". What does that mean?
@Rob260259 There are never any stars in any video or stills. There is never any steam escaping from a valve to cool astronaut's suits. When astronuts jump strait up as high as possilbe, they do not rotate backwards and end on on their asses. There is never any visible nozzle blast, thruster shots, blast crater, dust blast, or blast crater burn. There is no rocket motor noise and no vibration rumble during LEM ascent/descent in the astronauts audio.
@Rob260259 When the astronauts jump *strait* upward with all their strength in 1/6 gravity, momentum is the same on earth, but they go 6 times the acceleration because gravity is less for the same leg-strength.
They wear a pack at the top of the body no less than 1/3 of total body mass. Center of gravity is therefore 2/3 the way up the chest, and outside the body somewhere behind them in the pack.
You really don't know much about space travel in particular and physics in general, do you? You think NASA was stupid enough to forget to put a crater under the LM, stupid enough to 'forget' stars in pics and stupid enough to allow a flag to wave in the breeze. Stupid enough to allow the release of multiple videos in which even a high school drop out could see the faker...?
Good to see someone there got a head, and using it, but don'r expect any answer, other than playing dumb, from the Moon landers, but keep asking anyway.
@ItalianoAmericano The moon rotates once/month and all the Apollo landings were near the equator, making for much slower relative motion between the launch site and rendezvous orbital plane. The earth rotates in 24 hr and the ISS inclination is ~50 deg, making for a much more critical launch window. The CSM could maneuver to simplify things; the ISS cannot.
And so on and so on. As I said, a little knowledge of the physics makes a big difference in what seems "absurd" or irrelevant.
@ItalianoAmericano The moon also lacks an atmosphere so minimum safe perilune is defined by terrain clearance. The ISS is in such a low (~350 km) orbit that there's little room for even lower orbits with a significantly different period for phasing. The 3-day rendezvous of the shuttle with the ISS leaves time for new astronauts to acclimate themselves to space, while the LM ascent stage had very limited consumables that made a quick rendezvous imperative.
@ItalianoAmericano "Absurd" is subjective. What seems absurd or irrelevant to the uninformed might seem perfectly reasonable to someone who actually understands the underlying physics. The size (mass, actually) of the shuttle and ISS are quite relevant inasmuch as they determine the amount of propellant required to maneuver, and the need for efficiency in those maneuvers.
The moon is only 1/81of the earth's mass. It takes far less propellant to enter lunar orbit and to maneuver in it.
@losability Better call Fox news and let them know that you're the fucking genius who cracked the moon landing hoax wide open then, huh?
I guess all those rocket scientists and aerospace engineers at the top of the field are all just idiots and morons for missing this one! WOW. 41 years of fuckbuckets and mouthbreathers rattling on about a conspiracy, and all we needed was you! And your careful video analysis.
@losability The "staccato" maneuvers were made manually with the thrusters, and they appear sped up because of the camera's low frame rate. The ascent stage was depleted of propellants so it was very light at this point, so the response to the thrusters was very quick.
The only thing wrong with this film is that it was run through the projector flipped over so it shows as a mirror image. (The high gain antenna should appear on the LM crew's right side.)
Anyone notice a certain troll spamming up this video comment section? Sad these guys have nothing better to do than clutter up a fictional video, with moronic comments that, like NASA's evidence, disprove the moonlandings as authentic!
@un4g1v3n1 no i only replying... dont even care about anyone else reading it.. and its with the same people for geez ages :) it all started with me not believing docking footage.. its 60's green screen ;)~
@ItalianoAmericano I'd say it's pretty obvious you're drawing conclusions by waving your hands without any understanding of the physics involved. Why do you assume it should be faster to dock a massive shuttle with an even more massive ISS than to dock the ascent stage of a LM, depleted of all its fuel, with the CSM in lunar orbit?
When you work out the numbers you find that they're all completely consistent with Apollo having been completely real.
@hunchbacked Why? I've studied both the CM and LM very extensively, including their reaction control systems. I've run the numbers using the mass properties published in the mission reports. I could see that everything worked just as advertised; I see no reason at all to doubt that the missions happened just as they were reported to happen.
@jimbobg65 Huh? There are plenty of pictures, movies and TV footage, all consistent with the stated performance of these machines. What's so difficult with accepting all this? It's not like they're violating any physical laws. Is it so difficult to accept that the government actually did something that cool, even once?
dear people... just notice how it spins and stops dead, then spins the other way and stops dead.. it looks like it snaps to a stop before changing direction.. it is definately a model.. the machenical rigid movements are 100% fake.. but clear your mind look at all things and then judge for yourself.. , guarantee 100% so called facts are not truly known facts.. Houston control is a simulation room and their men have no way of telling the difference.. only a speaker and flashing lights :)
Lets launch 3 thousand tons out of Earth G, 13 times with no losses, but as for setting down 14 tons in 1/6 G....well, that's way too difficult...we'll have to fake that.
Let's also fake all 6 landings on the Earth side of the moon and when those idiots on Earth get the optical technology to see the landing sites, we'll jump out and shout "Gotcha!"
Moon hoaxers: Proof vegetables can talk to eachother.
@timpovikings iam sure they sent shit to the moon... its just no man went with it and no proof of that dumb fuck.. russian gear there too without using men to put it there... they went half way and fucking matched moon rotation that is it.. moon is not close its distance is 30 times the diameter of the earth away... then he still has fuel to spin around the fucking moon and fly back... bullshit bullshit bullshit.. the 3 men didnt go to the moon!! and no way of telling dumbass
@KungFriedChicken So what makes you so sure? Have you done the calculations? If so, let's see them.
You wouldn't come to a conclusion like this just by intuition, would you? I mean, just because it seems really hard, or you don't know how to do it yourself and you don't want to admit NASA's people were a lot smarter than you?
@timpovikings you do not have the ability to look outside your box-head.... and the light can not simply be turned on.. you will remain dumb till death and it is ok... you're not alone.
Mate, you sound like a shit salesman with a mouthful of samples.
I'm sorry your mother had no children that survived, but look on the bright side. Apollo has no effect on your crap life and your crap life has no effect on NASA.
I think that's a compromise we can live with, don't you? LOL!
@timpovikings they have no proof of landing a man on the moon.. NONE. the video does not cut it.. the shit on moon surface does not need a man to put it there.. Even if they did go, they still for whatever reason faked this docking and man walking on moon surface footage.. it is without a doubt fake.. Mate you're simply a trash talking fukwit, most likely one of those soccer fan dickheads that go around breaking shit like a cry baby everytime there team loses..
@timpovikings hahaha just checked your home page... rambling twit you are.. noticed no channel comments allowed so i guess you often get told how much of a tossa you are.. And ya holocaust ramblings ia a massive woopy fucking doo.. if you truly cared about human rights you would care more for what the japanese did to the chinese in manking etc.. 100 times worse than hitler.. killed millions more innocent people too.. fucking holocaust was pissy by comparison so get over it
Kid if you're serious then try to educate yourself, for you to believe the Apollo missions were faked is to believe that for over 40 years the scientific community of every nation ON EARTH has been fooled and remains so to this day.
Only lunatic fringe oddballs with room-temp IQ's think the space program wasn't real.
@Blahblobify Princess.. the scientific community has no way of telling if only one section of apollo went to the moon, while the part with the 3 men inside simply just orbited the earth for 8 days.. All you have is a speaker and some flashing dots.. and a whole bunch of "he said that she said that they said that they heard that this guy done this thing and they watched him do it".. ooo you got the t-birds tv footage too, but honestly that evidence does not support nasa's claims..
There were independant sightings of the Apollo missions on the way to the moon by telescopes all over the world, gooogle it and educate yourself queer.
That's what moon hoaxturds do.
Now explain the 800 lbs of moon samples brought back.
@Blahblobify well moon rocks are bullshit anyway...... the moon was made from the earth and the moon rocks are nothing extraordinary than earth rocks... plus they found moon rocks in antartica and possibly all of them... your not a geologist either so dont pretend you know the moon rocks are proof.. once again that is he said that she said.. all your facts are truly unknown facts to you, so stop kidding yourself, honestly you're not that clever.. or sand blast away scorch marks from meteorites
OK you are obviously ignorant. Moon rocks are like nothing else found on Earth, they are unique....look it up. Moon rocks found on Earth have been scorched from entering the atmosphere, the ones brought back are not. Being willfully stupid is no way to go through life kid, educate yourself before making up shit and sounding like an idiot.
Thousands of geologists, who know what the fuck they are talking about, have performed extensive testing on the rocks.
So when you finish your extensive testing to prove they are not from the moon I might believe your dribbling bullshit, but until then, keep your fuckeyed theories to yourself until you can prove you know what you're talking about.
@krisdevalle All i know is the moon landing footage is most definately fake... they might of went, but they never showed us the film footage of it....
@krisdevalle look at it... mechanical movements.. moves sideways.. snaps to a stop.. spins around.. snaps to a stop.. very mechanical... the riveting and everything when it does dock it very poor to say the least.. looks like a big budget thunderbirds short film..
@KungFriedChicken That's because the Reaction Control System was set up for a degree-based thrust. A tap one way or the other equalled the same amount of thrust each way.
Just because it looks fake to you is no reason to announce it as such; obviously thousands of aerospace engineers have seen this and have no problem with it. Stop comparing things to movies.
@krisdevalle prove me wrong mate... the proof is in the pudding, and their pudding is nothing more than loopy soup.. no i will not believe them on face value.. the only proof they have is so called moon rocks... other people call them earth rocks and sand blasted meteorites.. besides that any scientist willing to dispute nasa's claims will be quickly discredited and unemployed.. their hitler tactics is proof enough something is not right.. just like 9/11- now that is 100% inside job!
@KungFriedChicken What pudding? This footage has been around for 40 years, and it's only twits on youtube who think it is fake.
Hundreds of thousands of geologists have examined the moonrocks over time, and no-one trained has ever advanced the theory they are sandblasted meteorites. You do realise that all the claims of fakery come from untrained, uncredited amateurs? You have little to no idea how the scientific world works, and assume too much.
@krisdevalle well i dunno about moon rocks and all that anyway... i mean you could send a craft with a little remote bobcat and go pick up a few rocks.. Mate I truly hope they did go.. its just the moon landing footage and docking footage that gets me.. moon landing thing is a side line argument waiting for replys on 9/11 arguments ;)~ hehe ... well no they're debates not arguments :)
@KungFriedChicken Well okay, but what are your conditions for comparison? You can't really compare the LEM movements to movies, because movies are not reality.
If you look up how the RCS system works with the LEM it becomes clear that it was designed that way - to avoid crazy movements. One way - a measured amount of thrust, the other way, the same amount of thrust. It's a smart design. Being able to just lean on the throttle would result in a very diificult control system.
Being able to lean uniquely on the throttle would not just result in a very difficult control system, it would result in a completely uncontrollable system; the LM could not maneuver at all, and it could not control horizontal and vertical forces; without the RCS, it would not only be more difficult, it would be totally impossible.
@KungFriedChicken As for remote sample retrieval, the Soviets did that - a 5-tonne lander was only capable of a few surface scrapes to get dust and regolith to return. And they are currently still the only nation that has done that - a remote probe sample return mission.
For the US to return so much material, especially quite large rocks, would have entailed a regular and massive probe program, and there's no record or evidence that this ever happened.
@krisdevalle yeah but that was back in the 50's.. well i dunno actually maybe early to mid 60's i'm just guessing.. but the americans already had a beta version of Windows'69 in operation and chit ;)
To the moon, yes, but the Japenese were able to do it with an asteroid, and NASA did it with a comet. The Soviets are planning to do it with Phobos (the Phobos-grunt mission).
@sardoniclysane Ah, you are correct, but I should have clarified. 'from a planet/oid'. I think descent and ascent from a gravity well is probably the hardest part.
@KungFriedChicken Why would it have been easier to send a robot to pick up all those rocks? This was the late 1960s and you hoaxers already go on about their primitive computers. Do you really think NASA had the technology to automatically land a module on the moon, deploy a rover, drive around, select, photograph and return hundreds of kg of rocks and soil? Of course not! It was far easier to do it manually, with pilots in place of a sophisticated computer we don't even have today.
@ApolloWasReal dont give me this robot crap to make it sound technically amazing.. they had already flown and landed jumbo jets using a remote control.. and yes i do believe they had the technology.. the space shuttle and iss can even leave earth orbit can they using todays technology ?
@KungFriedChicken Jets use a radio navigation infrastructure and operate on prepared runways, neither of which exist on the moon. The LM pilots didn't even have high resolution pictures showing all the important craters and boulders. But hey, if you believe they had the technology, then describe it. And if they could send a robot, then why not humans? Just add a pressurized cabin, a life support system and a food supply. Simple.
@KungFriedChicken So what if the shuttle and ISS can't fly to the moon? They're not designed to. Trains can't fly either, but that doesn't mean airplanes don't exist.
@ApolloWasReal well they dont exist.. they can make one i guess but they have not got one.. anyway my point was that they certainly had technology back then, and were doing far more complex missions then they are these days, its not like they had cave man technology.. plus technology will always be decades infront of the general public's knowledge.. they have a key to the patents office to make sure ;)
@KungFriedChicken So if they had all that wonderful technology, then why didn't NASA just send humans to the moon with it just as they said they did? Wouldn't that have been so much easier than faking it with robots? They wouldn't have to worry about anybody spilling the beans either.
@ApolloWasReal they collected moon rocks in antartica too.. i dont care about moon rocks anyway.. yes easier to have guys in one section still in earth atmosphere and the other section fly off and just copy what the russians had been doing for 10 years already.. then back down into see a few days later :)~
@KungFriedChicken The total mass of rocks collected in Antarctica known to have come from the moon is far less than the mass of samples brought back by Apollo. The samples from Antarctica clearly show signs of having passed through the earth's atmosphere; the Apollo samples don't. And most important of all, it wasn't even known that those rocks from Antarctica were of lunar origin until well after the Apollo missions -- because that conclusion was reached by comparison with the Apollo samples!
look this has gone way of track from when i first made a comment on this vid.. and that is the docking footage is bullshit.. not all of it, but most of it :)
@KungFriedChicken So tell me, if not all of the docking footage is bullshit, that implies that at least some of it is real. If it is real, and the dockings really happened, what possible motive would there be to fake any of it? Or are you simply trying to have your cake and eat it too because you know you can't support a claim that the landings were all faked?
@ApolloWasReal Well I truly believe it's because of the Ufo/Alien thing. And honestly, they're is no way the government could tell the public that yes there are definately ufo's flying around by people from other planets.. It would be irresponsible because the fact is people all around the world would most definately freak out about it, and we are slowly getting weened into it ;)~
something like that, they did have an advisory commity that told them the public could not handle it did happen.
@KungFriedChicken Nobody could keep a secret like that. Just no way. If we'd actually been visited by another civilization, believe me, we'd all know it. Problem is, there's simply no evidence for it.
@ApolloWasReal man governments sucessfully keep major secrets from the public on a daily basis.. Look how many people were involved in the D-Day landings and the length of time taken to plan it all, yet very few people actually knew the details until after it happened. The idea that governments cannot keep top secrets is just plain silly. Also there is plenty of evidence of ufo's, just look at the entire tether incident footage filmed by nasa.. but always be hard to believe without touching one
@KungFriedChicken Governments can sometimes keep secrets for a very short time when everybody involved is highly motivated. You do know about D-Day because it ceased to be a secret on that day. This has nothing to do with the ridiculous claim that Apollo was "hoaxed" and no one has spilled the beans for over 40 years.
@ApolloWasReal yeah but I'm only talking about a small part of the moon landing really.. and that being the footage.. everything alse that involved many people can go on as normal.. just a handful of people involved in that bit of it maybe.. thats all I'm saying.. i seen docking footage from both perspectives and they just look wrong :)
@ApolloWasReal Governmets can keep secrets for a very LONG time over monsterously huge projects such as Manhattan Project, and can keep secrets FOREVER by murdering anyone that retires or for any other reason leaves a BLACK PROJECT.
@KungFriedChicken What are they? Camera artifacts. Study how cameras behave and you can understand them too. Of course, "camera artifacts" isn't nearly as exciting as "UFO aliens". But I prefer the truth even when it's boring.
@ApolloWasReal ok this a really good vid that uses stabilization and tracking techniques blah blah.. makes it go for ten minutes.. but its not camera artifacts.. they zoom in and out perfectly to size etc.. change directions, pulsate brightly.. notice little notches close on one side and open up on the other.. you have to look with keen interest man com on :)
@KungFriedChicken Keen interest is fine. Those notches are a very good example of the kind of subtle optical artifacts you can get in a TV camera. Just because you don't understand optics doesn't entitle you to jump to the conclusion that they're alien artifacts. They have a very simple and prosaic explanation. I know that's disappointing, but it's true.
@ApolloWasReal man i watched heaps of vids on optical artifacts... hang on i'll find one but they look nothing like it.. similar shape maybe but more a 2 dimensional projected shape not 3 dimensional, and they certainly dont move or pulsate the same..
@ApolloWasReal camera artifacts... best example i can find yet very dissapointing.. the camera shakes around but the object doesnt even move or look the same just a very flat similar shape nothing more and nothing like sts75
@ApolloWasReal honestly man i bet you cannot show me camera artifact footage that is anything like sts75.. with heaps of them flying around, changing directions,3 dimensional is shape and so clear and detailed like sts75.. hope you can but i bet you cannot :)
@KungFriedChicken You're just seeing small bits of ice floating around the shuttle when it dumps excess water produced by its fuel cells. Each is actually smaller than a pixel but lit by the sun they appear quite bright. The characteristic disc shape is merely an artifact of the TV camera lens, iris and sensor. If you listen to the commentary you'd know they'd just come into an orbital sunrise.
On ISS visits the shuttle left its water there instead of dumping it. Too valuable to waste.
@KungFriedChicken -- If you think the STS75 footage is "clear and detailed" you don't understand what you're looking at.
Look at it again. Look at the tether. How wide does it look? It is, in fact, about an inch wide and about a quarter mile long. It is TREMENDOUSLY distored because it is bright. There is NO WAY you can tell if any of those objects are going behind it. Everything about the light in the area of the tether is distortion.
@prosperomage ok you obviously missed something... the tether was a thin cord that snapped and is long gone.. this is the frame that extended out 12 miles.. you're not looking at the thin 'tether' anymore its now a useless structure with no tether running through it.. geezus MR CAPITAL dumbass
@ApolloWasReal my whole point is i believe the footage is fake.. thats all.. for whatever reason.. not even going is maybe one reason why.. then there is the alien thing.. ;)
@KungFriedChicken I see... you believe it's fake simply because you WANT to believe it's fake, and for no other reason. Or at least any reason you're willing to give.
Thank you for giving a much more honest answer than most hoax believers.
@KungFriedChicken These films were shot at reduced speed, 6 frames/sec, to conserve film. That's why everything looks sped up and jerky. When you actually do the calculations, as I have, you find that the LM ascent stage, sans descent stage and ascent propellants, had moments of inertia only 10% of the complete pre-descent LM. It could turn on a dime with its RCS thrusters. It could easily start and stop within one movie frame time.
The internet has not changed history. It has just given idiots a bigger soapbox to stand on. Idiots like JAK and cohorts.
I have to laugh at these fools who think of themselves as some sort of 'truth patriots' yet they lack the knowledge to understand the science behind the Apollo program. Real patriots are the astronauts. People who would slander them are just ass clowns.
DAS VIDEO IST DAS SCHLECHTESTE DAS ICH JE GESEHEN HAB.
DA SIND DIE URALTEN FILME MIT FLASH GORDON HIGHTECH-FILM GEGEN DAS HIER
UND DIE GERÄUSCHE SIND DAS BESTE. AM ANFANG DENKT MAN NOCH DASS ES IRGENDWIE UNTERLEGTE MUSIK SEIN KÖNNTE DIE BALD LOSGEHT... ABER MIT DER ZEIT MERKT MAN DASS DIESES GERÄUSCH VOM ADLER PRODUZIERT WIRD :-)
@Rob260259 DU BIST AUCH SO EIN KLEINGEIST, ZUERST BELEIDIGEN UND DANN SCHAUEN WAS DARAUS WIRD. DU BIST EIN ECHTES SALLY-PLAGIAT. DÜMMER ALS VERSCHIMMELTES BROT.
Beleidigen..? Haha. Das war nur ein kleines kompliment. Wenn ich anfang dich zu beleidigen binn ich verantwortlich für ein selbstmort. Also nein, du bist wirklich ein Genie.
@losability "nah boring." NASA had to come up with some drama because of the boredom. People just didn't want to watch after 11. It seems they must have known at a subconscious level the fact Apollo missions were just terribly produced movies. Has they spent more of the stolen tax dollars on higher quality special effects, and employed dramatic actors rather than goofy test pilots, they might have done a better job pulling it off!
@un4g1v3n1 Pay no attention to the troll above,he's one of those goofy hoax conspirators who parrots wacky lies & theories and spreads em' around, clambering for attention. He's also known as nasafakedit &fuckutube74. He never has anything worth of value to say he just complains and calls the greatest & most skilled TEST PILOTS that the world has ever seen, stupid childish names and insults. Funny,a kid could be jealous of an 80 yr old astronaut. Guess some people have to blame & hate something.
0:11 astronot in spotlight
0:19 footstep and necessary humidity only here on earth
4:28 and later, toy in front of large moon model, many pictures on the net how they filmed this
losability 4 days ago
Watch the NASA moon orbiting & landing videos.
Look at all NASA still photography.
NEVER not even 1 time, is any star ever visible.
THERE ARE NO STARS VISIBLE IN ANY OF NASA MOON VIDEO OR PHOTOGRAPHY
centurion180ad 1 week ago
@centurion180ad The sun is visible, and that's a star, isn't it? You shouldn't expect any other stars to be visible, inasmuch as the brightest star after the sun is 13 billion times dimmer. Isn't that obvious?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal Our star has a name, and if that is what I meant, I would have texted SOL which is her name.
Stars, planets & Milky Way ought to be *clearly* visible in many if not all stills & video.
They are not, because we never left orbit.
centurion180ad 1 week ago
Bullshit: It would never dock this way!
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked And, how do You believe it should dock?
The docking is filmed with a 16 mm film camera at slow speed, so the movements are faster than in real life.
YDDES 1 month ago
@YDDES
The LM does not arrive this way near the CM at all; it arrives elliptically on the orbit of the CM, a little ahead of it; it does not arrive vertically like it is shown on this video.
hunchbacked 1 month ago
@hunchbacked How would you know?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
It's physics!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Like just about everything else, you have a very naive view of rendezvous and docking. Because you refuse to learn the actual procedures and the rationale for each step, or even to concede that others might actually understand things you don't, you're trapped within your naive little world view.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
It's the videos of Apollo which are naive.
The LM is not a helicopter which can maneuver like it wants; we are in the void, and, in the void, it is much more difficult to maneuver.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked The facts here have been explained to you many times by many people, but they don't fit your preferred hoax conclusion so you ignore them. No, the LM is not a helicopter. It is a spacecraft with 16 100-pound rocket thrusters, an inertial reference platform and a computerized fly-by-wire digital control system, the first ever built. In a vacuum without wind or lift, the physics is MUCH cleaner. It is much EASIER to maneuver than a helicopter.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
Wrong, it is not easier to control than a helicopter, it is much more difficult, because the action of air brings a great help to the maneuver of an helicopter.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked You really are clueless. Newton's F=ma applies everywhere, but in a spacecraft the ONLY accelerations are those applied by its own thrusters, which can be turned on and off very precisely and under computer control with the help of an INS. In a helicopter there are many difficult-to-predict accelerations from the wind, turbulence, rotor wash, other aircraft, etc.
Or are you saying that even unmanned spacecraft cannot maneuver?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Aircraft are easier in only one way: fuel economy. The momentum of an aircraft can be changed with control surfaces that require almost no energy to operate; in a spacecraft it's all done by expending propellants. Aircraft engines have much higher specific impulses because they use "free" air as oxidizer and part of the propellant. But spacecraft in vacuum still have much greater predictability and controllability, because all the forces are much simpler.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
A minor correction: a spacecraft must *usually* expend propellant to change its momentum; solar radiation pressures are a (difficult) alternative for linear momentum. Angular momentum can also be changed with magnetic torquers, solar radiation pressure, gravity gradient booms and momentum wheels, though the latter must be unloaded periodically through one of the other three.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
No, it is more difficult to control the lunar module in the void than an helicopter in earth's atmosphere.
The tests with the LLRV have amply shown how difficult it was to control; and, if there is the least problem with the engine, adios muchachos: It is the crash guaranteed when landing on the moon.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Nonsense. You're not even listening to what I'm saying; you're just waving your hands and restating your conclusion because it "seems right" to you. Once again, F=ma (or a = F/m) is true everywhere. In an atmosphere, you have many forces (F's), many of which are aerodynamic and thus very hard to model. In space, you have NO forces except gravity (completely predictable from position) and thruster firings. That's it. Very easy to model and control.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
Not listening to what one is being said rather seems to be a specialty of yours!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Oh, I definitely do listen to what you say, as painful as that can be at times. It's just that I then reject it as wrong. And I even explain why.
If you were to entertain the notion that you just sometimes might be wrong, this might actually make sense to you.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked The LLRV flew successfully plenty of times. Neil Armstrong's famous crash happened when the attitude control system ran out of helium pressurant. Once again, the LLRV was a training and research vehicle; it attempted to provide on earth an experience like that of flying the LM above the moon, but it was entirely UNLIKE the LM and had nothing to do with the actual LM design.
This is a common misconception among hoaxers but I thought you were smarter than them.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked You didn't get this before so here it is again. This film is at 6 fps so it shows 4x normal speed. The LM moments of inertia at docking were: XX= 4568, YY=4127, ZZ=2938 kg/m^2. Each thruster is 445N (100 lbf) over a moment arm of 2m for a torque of 890 N-m. So firing 4 thrusters gave angular accelerations of yaw: 0.78; pitch: 0.863; roll: 1.21 rad/s^2. Linear accelerations are: X = 0.684; Y=Z=0.342 m/s^2. The depicted motions are WELL within these!
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
The depicted motions are well within these figures?
You have got a sense of humor...except that you say it seriously.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
That's a funny way to say that you don't understand it whatsoever.
Rob260259 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
Prove him wrong mr. 'engineer'. Just do your calculations and prove that Awr is wrong. I would love to see your figures on this.
Rob260259 1 week ago
@Rob260259
He just stacks figures, and he says that his figures correspond what we see; but what we see is fantasy, and he just imagines his figures, he picked somewhere, but which are completely unretated with what we see, correspond with what we see, because he likes to imagine they do.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
So you're unable to prove him wrong. And you're unable to do your own calculations based on the the footage. You're only rebuttal is saying he is wrong. Yeah... Thanks for another confirmation that you don't understand anything about this.
Rob260259 1 week ago
@Rob260259
It is not a question of proving wrong.
Sometimes it is so delirious that there is nothing to prove.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
Sometimes even a conspiracy theorist doesn't know what to say. Evidently, any phrase will do.
"what we see is fantasy"
- prove it.
"which are completely unretated with what we see"
- show why.
Rob260259 1 week ago
@hunchbacked I *imagine* my figures? I said where I got them and what they mean. It's hard to be fully detailed in 500 chars, so I'm working on a web page with all the details. If you can't give calculations of your own supporting a different conclusion, if you can't do more than wave your hands and claim it's fantasy, then it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked You say you're an engineer. You say science is important. If this were actually true, you'd already understand the importance of quantitative analysis: measurements and calculations. Numbers. Mine show that the motions we see are well within the LM's capabilities when you consider the sped-up film rate. So let's see YOUR calculations. You don't have any, do you?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked I am writing up the LM maneuvering calculations in a note. (I don't see any point in making a video of something that is better communicated in text.) My figures for the 890 N-m torques of the RCS thrusters were estimates as I did not have exact measurements for the moment arms. I have since found the actual torques in a reference: yaw 695 N-m; roll & pitch 746 N-m. A little less, so they do not materially change the results. But I like accuracy even if you don't.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
Yes, you are certainly reading these explanations from somewere, you have not drawn them from your hat, but you assume that they correspond with what we see on the video.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked I am not "reading these explanations" from anywhere. I've produced them myself, using only basic numerical references such as the dimensions of the LM, its mass and moments of inertia at docking, and the thrust and positions of its 16 attitude control engines.
If you were actually an engineer as you claim, you could do this for yourself, or check my math and see either way that I'm correct.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal
Oh yes, really?
Then you have got a lot of imagination!
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked Imagination? How? Maybe I only imagined that Newton wrote "F=ma" 300 years ago?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
You really have no clue, have you?
Rob260259 1 week ago
@Rob260259
It's rather you who have no clue, and you don't even know how much you have no clue.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
You're even unable to write correct English....
Rob260259 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
Are you going to make a video showing that F=ma is actually wrong?
Rob260259 1 week ago
@Rob260259
No, it will be more subtle.
hunchbacked 1 week ago
@hunchbacked
I'm truly very 'anxious'.
Rob260259 6 days ago
Wonderful video that should be required viewing in all American schools. One has to wonder if the screwballs who deny the Lunar landings gained a glimmer of the professionalism and immense courage of the men that made these historic journeys.
They should get help, either through education or counseling, and stop slandering the brave men and the tens of thousands of engineers and technicians who sent them to the surface of the moon and back..
Kapindur 4 months ago
@Kapindur If NASA video would be shown in schools, children that had not been brainwashed & indoctrinated sufficiently would ask embarrassing questions.
Why are there no stars ever visible?
Why is there no nozzle blast ever visible?
Why does the moon move out from under the ascending LEM?
Why is there no dust-blast or surface burn & blast crater ever visible?
Why didn't the men suffer radiation poisoning?
Scientific questions would lead to scientific answers.
FRAUD & HOAX
centurion180ad 1 week ago
@centurion180ad I would be very happy if kids were to ask those questions. Because every one of them has a good answer that sincere kids might actually listen to and learn something from. Indeed, the hoax theory is like making lemons (the idiot hoax theories) into lemonade (a chance to teach some real science). Unlike the adult Apollo deniers who lost their ability to learn, if they ever had it in the first place.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal All but 1 of those questions if answered truthfully, would reveal that Apollo was a hoax. Do you know which one?
I KNOW that Apollo was a hoax. The Astronauts are stinking theiving liars.
I am educated and a veteran, but I am now not pleased to be an American.
America is a SICK joke.
centurion180ad 1 week ago
@centurion180ad Sorry, but every one of those questions has a perfectly reasonable answer. They just seem counterintuitive to uninformed people whose intuitions are based on a lifetime of living on the earth. So like I said, I'd be happy if kids asked those questions. Kids are actually interested in learning the answers, not in using questions as weapons as you apparently do.
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal You texted, "every one of those questions has a perfectly reasonable answer."
Please answer each one of them, please.
centurion180ad 1 week ago
@centurion180ad In 500 chars or less? That's the problem with crank claims, they're easy to make but take more time to fully refute. But fortunately they're seldom original, so we don't have to keep redoing the work. All or nearly all of yours has been answered in complete detail on clavius; you know the site? The only one I don't understand is "moon moving out under ascending LEM". What does that mean?
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
@centurion180ad
"I KNOW that Apollo was a hoax"
- Please provide one (1) ounce of evidence for your ridiculous theory.
Rob260259 1 week ago
@Rob260259 There are never any stars in any video or stills. There is never any steam escaping from a valve to cool astronaut's suits. When astronuts jump strait up as high as possilbe, they do not rotate backwards and end on on their asses. There is never any visible nozzle blast, thruster shots, blast crater, dust blast, or blast crater burn. There is no rocket motor noise and no vibration rumble during LEM ascent/descent in the astronauts audio.
I could go on.
centurion180ad 1 day ago
@centurion180ad
Just Google Clavius Moon Base. All your questions answered. Don't just say "fake" because you don't understand things.
Rob260259 1 day ago
@Rob260259 When the astronauts jump *strait* upward with all their strength in 1/6 gravity, momentum is the same on earth, but they go 6 times the acceleration because gravity is less for the same leg-strength.
They wear a pack at the top of the body no less than 1/3 of total body mass. Center of gravity is therefore 2/3 the way up the chest, and outside the body somewhere behind them in the pack.
They'd rotate, and come down on their asses.
That is the physics test, that tells.
centurion180ad 1 day ago
@centurion180ad
Another confirmation, thank you.
Rob260259 1 day ago
@centurion180ad
Your silly theories on jumping & leaping:
\
w w w . clavius . org/gravleap . html
Educate yourself.
Rob260259 1 day ago
@centurion180ad -- Well, at least you SPELLED "physics" correctly.
It would be nice if you found a physics book and actually looked at it ... I mean ...beyond staring at the cover.
hahahaha
prosperomage 1 day ago
@centurion180ad
You really don't know much about space travel in particular and physics in general, do you? You think NASA was stupid enough to forget to put a crater under the LM, stupid enough to 'forget' stars in pics and stupid enough to allow a flag to wave in the breeze. Stupid enough to allow the release of multiple videos in which even a high school drop out could see the faker...?
Rob260259 1 day ago
@Rob260259 NASA is a criminal organization.
That is all you ought to need to know.
centurion180ad 1 day ago
@centurion180ad
Thank you for confirmation. You don't know much about this.
Bye.
Rob260259 1 day ago
@centurion180ad
Good to see someone there got a head, and using it, but don'r expect any answer, other than playing dumb, from the Moon landers, but keep asking anyway.
kennjohnsen 1 week ago
@ItalianoAmericano The moon rotates once/month and all the Apollo landings were near the equator, making for much slower relative motion between the launch site and rendezvous orbital plane. The earth rotates in 24 hr and the ISS inclination is ~50 deg, making for a much more critical launch window. The CSM could maneuver to simplify things; the ISS cannot.
And so on and so on. As I said, a little knowledge of the physics makes a big difference in what seems "absurd" or irrelevant.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ItalianoAmericano The moon also lacks an atmosphere so minimum safe perilune is defined by terrain clearance. The ISS is in such a low (~350 km) orbit that there's little room for even lower orbits with a significantly different period for phasing. The 3-day rendezvous of the shuttle with the ISS leaves time for new astronauts to acclimate themselves to space, while the LM ascent stage had very limited consumables that made a quick rendezvous imperative.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ItalianoAmericano "Absurd" is subjective. What seems absurd or irrelevant to the uninformed might seem perfectly reasonable to someone who actually understands the underlying physics. The size (mass, actually) of the shuttle and ISS are quite relevant inasmuch as they determine the amount of propellant required to maneuver, and the need for efficiency in those maneuvers.
The moon is only 1/81of the earth's mass. It takes far less propellant to enter lunar orbit and to maneuver in it.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
Toy in front of a rotating moon model.
(sudden"staccato" movements between 4:14 and 4:50)
losability 7 months ago
@losability Better call Fox news and let them know that you're the fucking genius who cracked the moon landing hoax wide open then, huh?
I guess all those rocket scientists and aerospace engineers at the top of the field are all just idiots and morons for missing this one! WOW. 41 years of fuckbuckets and mouthbreathers rattling on about a conspiracy, and all we needed was you! And your careful video analysis.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@losability The "staccato" maneuvers were made manually with the thrusters, and they appear sped up because of the camera's low frame rate. The ascent stage was depleted of propellants so it was very light at this point, so the response to the thrusters was very quick.
The only thing wrong with this film is that it was run through the projector flipped over so it shows as a mirror image. (The high gain antenna should appear on the LM crew's right side.)
ApolloWasReal 1 week ago
Anyone notice a certain troll spamming up this video comment section? Sad these guys have nothing better to do than clutter up a fictional video, with moronic comments that, like NASA's evidence, disprove the moonlandings as authentic!
un4g1v3n1 7 months ago
@un4g1v3n1 no i only replying... dont even care about anyone else reading it.. and its with the same people for geez ages :) it all started with me not believing docking footage.. its 60's green screen ;)~
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@ItalianoAmericano I'd say it's pretty obvious you're drawing conclusions by waving your hands without any understanding of the physics involved. Why do you assume it should be faster to dock a massive shuttle with an even more massive ISS than to dock the ascent stage of a LM, depleted of all its fuel, with the CSM in lunar orbit?
When you work out the numbers you find that they're all completely consistent with Apollo having been completely real.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
A real LM would never have docked with a real CM this way; this is total fantasy.
I like science, but I hate when science is ridiculed this way!
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@hunchbacked Why? I've studied both the CM and LM very extensively, including their reaction control systems. I've run the numbers using the mass properties published in the mission reports. I could see that everything worked just as advertised; I see no reason at all to doubt that the missions happened just as they were reported to happen.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal "I've studied both the CM and LM very extensively, including their reaction control systems." -- Pics or it didn't happen.
jimbobg65 6 months ago
@jimbobg65 Huh? There are plenty of pictures, movies and TV footage, all consistent with the stated performance of these machines. What's so difficult with accepting all this? It's not like they're violating any physical laws. Is it so difficult to accept that the government actually did something that cool, even once?
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal There is no visible nozzle blast, nor are thruster shots *ever* visible.
THERE ARE NEVER ANY STARS VISIBLE
NEVER
NOT EVEN 1 STAR IS EVER VISIBLE
centurion180ad 1 week ago
The greatest achievement of America was the fact they put the word "HOAX"next to the name "Moon" in all the encyclopedias and dictionaries.
potrodsas 7 months ago
horrible made fake, lame models
xismxist 9 months ago
dear people... just notice how it spins and stops dead, then spins the other way and stops dead.. it looks like it snaps to a stop before changing direction.. it is definately a model.. the machenical rigid movements are 100% fake.. but clear your mind look at all things and then judge for yourself.. , guarantee 100% so called facts are not truly known facts.. Houston control is a simulation room and their men have no way of telling the difference.. only a speaker and flashing lights :)
KungFriedChicken 9 months ago
Lets launch 3 thousand tons out of Earth G, 13 times with no losses, but as for setting down 14 tons in 1/6 G....well, that's way too difficult...we'll have to fake that.
Let's also fake all 6 landings on the Earth side of the moon and when those idiots on Earth get the optical technology to see the landing sites, we'll jump out and shout "Gotcha!"
Moon hoaxers: Proof vegetables can talk to eachother.
timpovikings 9 months ago
@timpovikings iam sure they sent shit to the moon... its just no man went with it and no proof of that dumb fuck.. russian gear there too without using men to put it there... they went half way and fucking matched moon rotation that is it.. moon is not close its distance is 30 times the diameter of the earth away... then he still has fuel to spin around the fucking moon and fly back... bullshit bullshit bullshit.. the 3 men didnt go to the moon!! and no way of telling dumbass
KungFriedChicken 9 months ago
@KungFriedChicken So what makes you so sure? Have you done the calculations? If so, let's see them.
You wouldn't come to a conclusion like this just by intuition, would you? I mean, just because it seems really hard, or you don't know how to do it yourself and you don't want to admit NASA's people were a lot smarter than you?
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@timpovikings you do not have the ability to look outside your box-head.... and the light can not simply be turned on.. you will remain dumb till death and it is ok... you're not alone.
KungFriedChicken 9 months ago
@KungFriedChicken
Mate, you sound like a shit salesman with a mouthful of samples.
I'm sorry your mother had no children that survived, but look on the bright side. Apollo has no effect on your crap life and your crap life has no effect on NASA.
I think that's a compromise we can live with, don't you? LOL!
timpovikings 9 months ago
@timpovikings they have no proof of landing a man on the moon.. NONE. the video does not cut it.. the shit on moon surface does not need a man to put it there.. Even if they did go, they still for whatever reason faked this docking and man walking on moon surface footage.. it is without a doubt fake.. Mate you're simply a trash talking fukwit, most likely one of those soccer fan dickheads that go around breaking shit like a cry baby everytime there team loses..
KungFriedChicken 9 months ago
@KungFriedChicken
ZZZ...zzz...zzz...!
timpovikings 9 months ago
@timpovikings hahaha just checked your home page... rambling twit you are.. noticed no channel comments allowed so i guess you often get told how much of a tossa you are.. And ya holocaust ramblings ia a massive woopy fucking doo.. if you truly cared about human rights you would care more for what the japanese did to the chinese in manking etc.. 100 times worse than hitler.. killed millions more innocent people too.. fucking holocaust was pissy by comparison so get over it
KungFriedChicken 9 months ago
@KungFriedChicken
Kid if you're serious then try to educate yourself, for you to believe the Apollo missions were faked is to believe that for over 40 years the scientific community of every nation ON EARTH has been fooled and remains so to this day.
Only lunatic fringe oddballs with room-temp IQ's think the space program wasn't real.
Blahblobify 8 months ago
@Blahblobify Princess.. the scientific community has no way of telling if only one section of apollo went to the moon, while the part with the 3 men inside simply just orbited the earth for 8 days.. All you have is a speaker and some flashing dots.. and a whole bunch of "he said that she said that they said that they heard that this guy done this thing and they watched him do it".. ooo you got the t-birds tv footage too, but honestly that evidence does not support nasa's claims..
KungFriedChicken 8 months ago
@KungFriedChicken
You're just making shit up now.
There were independant sightings of the Apollo missions on the way to the moon by telescopes all over the world, gooogle it and educate yourself queer.
That's what moon hoaxturds do.
Now explain the 800 lbs of moon samples brought back.
Blahblobify 8 months ago
@Blahblobify well moon rocks are bullshit anyway...... the moon was made from the earth and the moon rocks are nothing extraordinary than earth rocks... plus they found moon rocks in antartica and possibly all of them... your not a geologist either so dont pretend you know the moon rocks are proof.. once again that is he said that she said.. all your facts are truly unknown facts to you, so stop kidding yourself, honestly you're not that clever.. or sand blast away scorch marks from meteorites
KungFriedChicken 8 months ago
@KungFriedChicken
OK you are obviously ignorant. Moon rocks are like nothing else found on Earth, they are unique....look it up. Moon rocks found on Earth have been scorched from entering the atmosphere, the ones brought back are not. Being willfully stupid is no way to go through life kid, educate yourself before making up shit and sounding like an idiot.
Blahblobify 8 months ago
@Blahblobify blah blo me bify
KungFriedChicken 8 months ago
@KungFriedChicken You are not a geologist either, you idiot.
Thousands of geologists, who know what the fuck they are talking about, have performed extensive testing on the rocks.
So when you finish your extensive testing to prove they are not from the moon I might believe your dribbling bullshit, but until then, keep your fuckeyed theories to yourself until you can prove you know what you're talking about.
krisdevalle 8 months ago
@krisdevalle All i know is the moon landing footage is most definately fake... they might of went, but they never showed us the film footage of it....
KungFriedChicken 8 months ago
@KungFriedChicken How do you know this?
krisdevalle 8 months ago
@krisdevalle look at it... mechanical movements.. moves sideways.. snaps to a stop.. spins around.. snaps to a stop.. very mechanical... the riveting and everything when it does dock it very poor to say the least.. looks like a big budget thunderbirds short film..
KungFriedChicken 8 months ago
@KungFriedChicken That's because the Reaction Control System was set up for a degree-based thrust. A tap one way or the other equalled the same amount of thrust each way.
Just because it looks fake to you is no reason to announce it as such; obviously thousands of aerospace engineers have seen this and have no problem with it. Stop comparing things to movies.
krisdevalle 8 months ago
@krisdevalle there in space... should be a smooth flow.. its worse than 2001 a space oddity, and that was released in '68 :)
KungFriedChicken 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken When you refrain from comparing movie sfx to reality, I will stop considering you to be an idiot.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle It's basically green screen
KungFriedChicken 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Prove it.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle prove me wrong mate... the proof is in the pudding, and their pudding is nothing more than loopy soup.. no i will not believe them on face value.. the only proof they have is so called moon rocks... other people call them earth rocks and sand blasted meteorites.. besides that any scientist willing to dispute nasa's claims will be quickly discredited and unemployed.. their hitler tactics is proof enough something is not right.. just like 9/11- now that is 100% inside job!
KungFriedChicken 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken What pudding? This footage has been around for 40 years, and it's only twits on youtube who think it is fake.
Hundreds of thousands of geologists have examined the moonrocks over time, and no-one trained has ever advanced the theory they are sandblasted meteorites. You do realise that all the claims of fakery come from untrained, uncredited amateurs? You have little to no idea how the scientific world works, and assume too much.
Not even SFX experts think this is fake!
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle well i dunno about moon rocks and all that anyway... i mean you could send a craft with a little remote bobcat and go pick up a few rocks.. Mate I truly hope they did go.. its just the moon landing footage and docking footage that gets me.. moon landing thing is a side line argument waiting for replys on 9/11 arguments ;)~ hehe ... well no they're debates not arguments :)
KungFriedChicken 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Well okay, but what are your conditions for comparison? You can't really compare the LEM movements to movies, because movies are not reality.
If you look up how the RCS system works with the LEM it becomes clear that it was designed that way - to avoid crazy movements. One way - a measured amount of thrust, the other way, the same amount of thrust. It's a smart design. Being able to just lean on the throttle would result in a very diificult control system.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle
Being able to lean uniquely on the throttle would not just result in a very difficult control system, it would result in a completely uncontrollable system; the LM could not maneuver at all, and it could not control horizontal and vertical forces; without the RCS, it would not only be more difficult, it would be totally impossible.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken As for remote sample retrieval, the Soviets did that - a 5-tonne lander was only capable of a few surface scrapes to get dust and regolith to return. And they are currently still the only nation that has done that - a remote probe sample return mission.
For the US to return so much material, especially quite large rocks, would have entailed a regular and massive probe program, and there's no record or evidence that this ever happened.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle yeah but that was back in the 50's.. well i dunno actually maybe early to mid 60's i'm just guessing.. but the americans already had a beta version of Windows'69 in operation and chit ;)
KungFriedChicken 7 months ago
@krisdevalle
To the moon, yes, but the Japenese were able to do it with an asteroid, and NASA did it with a comet. The Soviets are planning to do it with Phobos (the Phobos-grunt mission).
sardoniclysane 7 months ago
@sardoniclysane Ah, you are correct, but I should have clarified. 'from a planet/oid'. I think descent and ascent from a gravity well is probably the hardest part.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Why would it have been easier to send a robot to pick up all those rocks? This was the late 1960s and you hoaxers already go on about their primitive computers. Do you really think NASA had the technology to automatically land a module on the moon, deploy a rover, drive around, select, photograph and return hundreds of kg of rocks and soil? Of course not! It was far easier to do it manually, with pilots in place of a sophisticated computer we don't even have today.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal dont give me this robot crap to make it sound technically amazing.. they had already flown and landed jumbo jets using a remote control.. and yes i do believe they had the technology.. the space shuttle and iss can even leave earth orbit can they using todays technology ?
KungFriedChicken 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Jets use a radio navigation infrastructure and operate on prepared runways, neither of which exist on the moon. The LM pilots didn't even have high resolution pictures showing all the important craters and boulders. But hey, if you believe they had the technology, then describe it. And if they could send a robot, then why not humans? Just add a pressurized cabin, a life support system and a food supply. Simple.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken So what if the shuttle and ISS can't fly to the moon? They're not designed to. Trains can't fly either, but that doesn't mean airplanes don't exist.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal well they dont exist.. they can make one i guess but they have not got one.. anyway my point was that they certainly had technology back then, and were doing far more complex missions then they are these days, its not like they had cave man technology.. plus technology will always be decades infront of the general public's knowledge.. they have a key to the patents office to make sure ;)
KungFriedChicken 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken So if they had all that wonderful technology, then why didn't NASA just send humans to the moon with it just as they said they did? Wouldn't that have been so much easier than faking it with robots? They wouldn't have to worry about anybody spilling the beans either.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
@ApolloWasReal they collected moon rocks in antartica too.. i dont care about moon rocks anyway.. yes easier to have guys in one section still in earth atmosphere and the other section fly off and just copy what the russians had been doing for 10 years already.. then back down into see a few days later :)~
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken The total mass of rocks collected in Antarctica known to have come from the moon is far less than the mass of samples brought back by Apollo. The samples from Antarctica clearly show signs of having passed through the earth's atmosphere; the Apollo samples don't. And most important of all, it wasn't even known that those rocks from Antarctica were of lunar origin until well after the Apollo missions -- because that conclusion was reached by comparison with the Apollo samples!
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal I'm still waiting for Armalcolite btw..
look this has gone way of track from when i first made a comment on this vid.. and that is the docking footage is bullshit.. not all of it, but most of it :)
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken So tell me, if not all of the docking footage is bullshit, that implies that at least some of it is real. If it is real, and the dockings really happened, what possible motive would there be to fake any of it? Or are you simply trying to have your cake and eat it too because you know you can't support a claim that the landings were all faked?
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Well I truly believe it's because of the Ufo/Alien thing. And honestly, they're is no way the government could tell the public that yes there are definately ufo's flying around by people from other planets.. It would be irresponsible because the fact is people all around the world would most definately freak out about it, and we are slowly getting weened into it ;)~
something like that, they did have an advisory commity that told them the public could not handle it did happen.
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Nobody could keep a secret like that. Just no way. If we'd actually been visited by another civilization, believe me, we'd all know it. Problem is, there's simply no evidence for it.
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal man governments sucessfully keep major secrets from the public on a daily basis.. Look how many people were involved in the D-Day landings and the length of time taken to plan it all, yet very few people actually knew the details until after it happened. The idea that governments cannot keep top secrets is just plain silly. Also there is plenty of evidence of ufo's, just look at the entire tether incident footage filmed by nasa.. but always be hard to believe without touching one
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Governments can sometimes keep secrets for a very short time when everybody involved is highly motivated. You do know about D-Day because it ceased to be a secret on that day. This has nothing to do with the ridiculous claim that Apollo was "hoaxed" and no one has spilled the beans for over 40 years.
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal yeah but I'm only talking about a small part of the moon landing really.. and that being the footage.. everything alse that involved many people can go on as normal.. just a handful of people involved in that bit of it maybe.. thats all I'm saying.. i seen docking footage from both perspectives and they just look wrong :)
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal Governmets can keep secrets for a very LONG time over monsterously huge projects such as Manhattan Project, and can keep secrets FOREVER by murdering anyone that retires or for any other reason leaves a BLACK PROJECT.
centurion180ad 1 week ago
@ApolloWasReal /watch?v=As-wYmFYb3I
thats nasa's own footage using their super dooper infared space camera thingamybob.. what do you think they are ?
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken What are they? Camera artifacts. Study how cameras behave and you can understand them too. Of course, "camera artifacts" isn't nearly as exciting as "UFO aliens". But I prefer the truth even when it's boring.
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal ok this a really good vid that uses stabilization and tracking techniques blah blah.. makes it go for ten minutes.. but its not camera artifacts.. they zoom in and out perfectly to size etc.. change directions, pulsate brightly.. notice little notches close on one side and open up on the other.. you have to look with keen interest man com on :)
/watch?v=Q2DVeil21gc
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Keen interest is fine. Those notches are a very good example of the kind of subtle optical artifacts you can get in a TV camera. Just because you don't understand optics doesn't entitle you to jump to the conclusion that they're alien artifacts. They have a very simple and prosaic explanation. I know that's disappointing, but it's true.
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal man i watched heaps of vids on optical artifacts... hang on i'll find one but they look nothing like it.. similar shape maybe but more a 2 dimensional projected shape not 3 dimensional, and they certainly dont move or pulsate the same..
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal camera artifacts... best example i can find yet very dissapointing.. the camera shakes around but the object doesnt even move or look the same just a very flat similar shape nothing more and nothing like sts75
/watch?v=SYLHqv-foMk
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@ApolloWasReal honestly man i bet you cannot show me camera artifact footage that is anything like sts75.. with heaps of them flying around, changing directions,3 dimensional is shape and so clear and detailed like sts75.. hope you can but i bet you cannot :)
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken You're just seeing small bits of ice floating around the shuttle when it dumps excess water produced by its fuel cells. Each is actually smaller than a pixel but lit by the sun they appear quite bright. The characteristic disc shape is merely an artifact of the TV camera lens, iris and sensor. If you listen to the commentary you'd know they'd just come into an orbital sunrise.
On ISS visits the shuttle left its water there instead of dumping it. Too valuable to waste.
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago 6
@KungFriedChicken -- If you think the STS75 footage is "clear and detailed" you don't understand what you're looking at.
Look at it again. Look at the tether. How wide does it look? It is, in fact, about an inch wide and about a quarter mile long. It is TREMENDOUSLY distored because it is bright. There is NO WAY you can tell if any of those objects are going behind it. Everything about the light in the area of the tether is distortion.
prosperomage 4 months ago 3
@prosperomage ok you obviously missed something... the tether was a thin cord that snapped and is long gone.. this is the frame that extended out 12 miles.. you're not looking at the thin 'tether' anymore its now a useless structure with no tether running through it.. geezus MR CAPITAL dumbass
KungFriedChicken 4 months ago
@ApolloWasReal my whole point is i believe the footage is fake.. thats all.. for whatever reason.. not even going is maybe one reason why.. then there is the alien thing.. ;)
KungFriedChicken 6 months ago
@KungFriedChicken I see... you believe it's fake simply because you WANT to believe it's fake, and for no other reason. Or at least any reason you're willing to give.
Thank you for giving a much more honest answer than most hoax believers.
ApolloWasReal 6 months ago
@krisdevalle definately some of the footage looks real but not all of it ;)
KungFriedChicken 7 months ago
@KungFriedChicken These films were shot at reduced speed, 6 frames/sec, to conserve film. That's why everything looks sped up and jerky. When you actually do the calculations, as I have, you find that the LM ascent stage, sans descent stage and ascent propellants, had moments of inertia only 10% of the complete pre-descent LM. It could turn on a dime with its RCS thrusters. It could easily start and stop within one movie frame time.
ApolloWasReal 7 months ago
Comment removed
JAK0690 11 months ago
@ Rob260259 > You are a small intellectual psychopath.
Erinnerst mich an Sallylein1977 und die anderen :-)
JAK0690 11 months ago
The internet has not changed history. It has just given idiots a bigger soapbox to stand on. Idiots like JAK and cohorts.
I have to laugh at these fools who think of themselves as some sort of 'truth patriots' yet they lack the knowledge to understand the science behind the Apollo program. Real patriots are the astronauts. People who would slander them are just ass clowns.
Rob260259 11 months ago 3
DAS VIDEO IST DAS SCHLECHTESTE DAS ICH JE GESEHEN HAB.
DA SIND DIE URALTEN FILME MIT FLASH GORDON HIGHTECH-FILM GEGEN DAS HIER
UND DIE GERÄUSCHE SIND DAS BESTE. AM ANFANG DENKT MAN NOCH DASS ES IRGENDWIE UNTERLEGTE MUSIK SEIN KÖNNTE DIE BALD LOSGEHT... ABER MIT DER ZEIT MERKT MAN DASS DIESES GERÄUSCH VOM ADLER PRODUZIERT WIRD :-)
JAK0690 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAS IST DAS LÄCHERLICHSTE VIDEO DAS ICH KENNE.
HAT SEHR GROßE ÄHNLICHKEIT MIT FLASH GORDON DER 1930er JAHRE.
UND DANN DIE GERÄUSCHEN :-)))
JAK0690 11 months ago
NA DANN FANG MAL AN BEVOR DU DICH VERLETZT :-)
JAK0690 11 months ago
MACH DIR KEINE GEDANKEN ÜBER MEINE SCHREIBWEISE.
DIE UMSCHALTTASTE HAB ICH FESTGESCHRAUBT.
WENN DU IN GOOGLE > BAY EINGIBST, KANNST DU DAS TSCHÜß EINFACH KOPIEREN UND ES IN DEIN KOMMENTARE EINFÜGEN.
SCHAU. ICH KANN ES DOCH AUCH > ICH GEBE BEI GOOGLE EINFACH > MAN SIEHT SICH EIN UND GOOGLE ZEIGT MIR DANN DIE ENGLISCHE SCHREIBWEISE > SEE YOU
ALSO SEE YOU
--------------
DIE FILME DER 1930er- und 1940er JAHRE (FLASH GORON) WAREN REALISTISCHER ALS DIE NASA-MONDLANDE-FILME.
JAK0690 11 months ago
@JAK0690
Sind sie die Deutsche Humanmonkeyrace?
Hier is noch mehr zu lächeln: watch?v=QnCEPUsXsLQ
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 Ich finde dass NASA die Mondlandungen gut produzierte. Die in HOLLYWOOD hätten es nicht besser machen können.
Nur das Ganze dann als eine echte Mondlandung verkaufen zu wollen...
Das war zuviel des Guten :-)
JAK0690 11 months ago
@JAK0690
Dumkopf, das alles war doch in Hollywood produziert? Oder war es vielleicht Petrifiedwood...
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 DU BIST AUCH SO EIN KLEINGEIST, ZUERST BELEIDIGEN UND DANN SCHAUEN WAS DARAUS WIRD. DU BIST EIN ECHTES SALLY-PLAGIAT. DÜMMER ALS VERSCHIMMELTES BROT.
JAK0690 11 months ago
@JAK0690
Beleidigen..? Haha. Das war nur ein kleines kompliment. Wenn ich anfang dich zu beleidigen binn ich verantwortlich für ein selbstmort. Also nein, du bist wirklich ein Genie.
Rob260259 11 months ago
DIE BEWEGUNGEN DES LM SIND VOLLKOMMEN SCHWACHSINNIG.
ERINNERT MICH AN FLASH GORDON DER 1930er- und 1940er JAHRE :-)
DAS IST EIN DER LÄCHERLICHSTEN VIDEOS DIE MAN KENNT.
JAK0690 11 months ago
@JAK0690
Versuche Englisch. Und ein bisschen verstand.
receiver69 11 months ago
@receiver69 MEINE KOMMENTARE SIND ALLE MIT VERSTAND :-)
ICH KOMMENTIERE GRUNDSÄTZLICH IN DEUTSCHER SPRACHE SO GUT ODER SCHLECHT ICH SIE KANN.
NICHTS FÜR UNGUT ABER DU FINDEST BESTIMMT EINEN BESSEREN DOLMETSCHER ALS MICH.
JAK0690 11 months ago
@JAK0690
1. versuche CapsLock aus zu schalten.
2. Tschuuss
receiver69 11 months ago
It's funny how the"Moon Hoax Conspirators"call Apollo believers "shills, trolls, and propagandist",that's absurd to the point of ridiculously funny!
I wonder can anybody see the desperation in their narrative?
Apollo believers must be so used this stupid transference of terms and meanings that they just let it roll off their backs like water offa' duck.
Hoaxsers' are the shills,trolls & propagandists.They're the ones selling videos,books & crap, Apollo was bought & paid for years ago.
Hoax=sales
Tweekerhead 11 months ago 2
The only thing that was missing was the popcorn! LMAO!
un4g1v3n1 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1 you are such a ignorant redneck,I bet you haven't evan completed kindergarden.
TheHotelMoxa 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1 Hey man Yoo blockded me ..i thout we waz frends an weded stik togedder donyt yoo lyk me?
I lyk yoo yoo reel reel smart an intelijint be my frend we think alyke yoo an me
Hoaxslpper 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1 nah boring. 9/11 was better
losability 1 year ago
@losability "nah boring." NASA had to come up with some drama because of the boredom. People just didn't want to watch after 11. It seems they must have known at a subconscious level the fact Apollo missions were just terribly produced movies. Has they spent more of the stolen tax dollars on higher quality special effects, and employed dramatic actors rather than goofy test pilots, they might have done a better job pulling it off!
un4g1v3n1 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1
What a story. Write your book Rick!
receiver69 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1 sadly enough it still seems good enough for most people.
losability 11 months ago
@losability tis a sad state of the intelligence, and common sense absent in the minds of humanity.
un4g1v3n1 11 months ago
@un4g1v3n1 Pay no attention to the troll above,he's one of those goofy hoax conspirators who parrots wacky lies & theories and spreads em' around, clambering for attention. He's also known as nasafakedit &fuckutube74. He never has anything worth of value to say he just complains and calls the greatest & most skilled TEST PILOTS that the world has ever seen, stupid childish names and insults. Funny,a kid could be jealous of an 80 yr old astronaut. Guess some people have to blame & hate something.
Tweekerhead 11 months ago 2
@Tweekerhead
Too bad Humanmonkeyrace aka Nasafakedit aka Fuckutube is just another hoaxhead like Un4g1v3n1.
receiver69 11 months ago 2
@losability
"9/11 was better"
asshole
receiver69 1 year ago 7
@receiver69 i understand this reaction as one of a believer.
I am not, for me both were examples of TV fakery in every detail.
(have a look at septemberclues)
losability 11 months ago
@losability
"for me both were examples of TV fakery"
My grandfather shouted "fake" when I showed him my first cellphone some years ago.
receiver69 11